Appeal No. 2006-1557 Παγε 12
Application No. 10/220,514
respect to our discussion of the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 19.
It follows that we shall sustain the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 20 and 25-28, on this record.
§ 103 Alternative Rejection
In view of the above discussion, we shall likewise sustain
the examiner’s § 103 alternative rejection over Elger since a
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524,
1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
While we find that Elger anticipates and hence renders the
claimed method and apparatus prima facie obvious for the reasons
outlined above, we further determine that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to the claimed process and
apparatus by simply following the teachings of Elger to cut the
web at an upstream location so that increased flexibility and
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007